mike sisk

September 11, 2006

I also have a Kodak 1400 and agree with Edward.

The gamut and sharpness aren't up to the latest ink jets, but once you get it setup you'll

get a perfect print out anytime with no waste or surprises.

As an aside, if you show a non-photographer two prints -- one from a good ink jet and

the other from the Kodak -- and ask them which they prefer, 9 times out of 10 they'll pick

the Kodak. The feel and look of the output from the Kodak is what most think a

photograph should be. For this reason the Kodak dye-subs are preferred by a lot of event

photographers. And most of those little Kodak print stations at drug stores and such have

a Kodak dye-sub down inside.

September 8, 2006

<blockquote>...can't take more than 3GB of memory, so the 64 bit processors don't

really get you much.</blockquote>

There's a lot more to the Core 2 Duo processors in the new iMacs besides 64-bit. Plus,

saying 64-bit doesn't do much for you with less than 4GB RAM is a gross generalization.

The Core 2 processors in the new iMac are from the same family as the "Woodcrest" Xeon

in the Mac Pro and are much better than the old "Yonah" Core Duo in existing Intel iMacs.

Of interest to Mac fans is the vector performance of the Core 2 series -- it approaches,

perhaps even exceeding, that of the PowerPC AltiVec engine.

Here's a link to more geeky details:

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars/1</a>

September 7, 2006

I did a little research on this issue. Apparently Apple made a change in the USB kernel

extension that broke some things, including some of the Canon utilities. It isn't broken

across the board and seems to only affect some hardware configurations.

Here's one potential fix:

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=2718770</a>.

The consensus in the developer community is that Apple is right and the third-party

products are not following USB guidelines. But that's subject to debate.

-Mike

September 7, 2006

I haven't actually seen one or know of any online reviews. I ordered one with the faster CPU

and upgraded graphics card but it won't be here until next week.

I doubt the slightly faster CPU will be noticeable, and it's currently a build-to-order option --

the stores are likely only stocking the 2.16 GHz model.

Seems like an ideal machine -- they even included Firewire 800 on this one.

-Mike

September 7, 2006

I never really do remote capture, but have you tried the CameraWindow application? It has a

remote capture task that works with my 1D2N on OS X 10.4.7.

-Mike

September 7, 2006

There's also the RS-80N3 for $50 which is just a switch.

I have the TC-80N3 and it is a very useful device if you ever want to do long exposures or

timer stuff.

I even used mine as a timer for Polaroids back when I still used a 4x5 camera with

Type-55 film.

Keep in mind this is one accessory that you'll likely keep for a long time, or at least until

Canon redesigns the plug.

-Mike

September 7, 2006

It's the little 4-pin plug.

If you can, get a "cable protector" from a 1D2N to help hold the firewire cable in place and

keep it

from falling out. Here's a picture:

http://old.mikesisk.com/photography/images/sd550/firewire1.jpg</a>

September 7, 2006

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=482808&tstart=0

</a>

Aperture does run on the new MacBooks, but it is NOT officially supported, due to

limitations with the graphics card. This means if you call AppleCare, you'll simply be told

that you're running Aperture on an unsupported configuration. It's an "at-your-own-risk"

experience.

That being said, Aperture will install and run on a MacBook...at least you're not disallowed

from using it. No hacks needed!

And of course, Aperture is fully supported on all MacBook PRO models.

Joe Schorr

Sr. Product Manager, Aperture

Apple

September 7, 2006

I've tried it and it does work. But it's slower than an Intel iMac, Mac Book Pro, or Mac Pro.

The really cool thing about Aperture is its use of Core Image for image processing which uses

the graphics hardware to offload much of the image processing. On a Mac Book you don't

have much in the way of graphics hardware so it does the processing in software. Depending

on what you're doing and the file sizes involved this may or may not be a problem.

September 6, 2006

Well, I know for sure that the Canon 1D2N, 20D, 10D, SD550, and S80 all work for me and

my wife on our various Mac's all running 10.4.7.

I don't know about all the Canon software, but I know the camera connecting software for

the 1D2N's personal functions works as well.

I think Canon is being overly cautious -- I believe there was some issue with USB in some

instances, but IIRC a later OS update solved the problem.

As to the original question, I think the SD550 (or the later models in the SD line) make

great pocket cameras. No remote, but the self-timer does the trick for me and is one less

thing to lose.

September 6, 2006

Yes, but due to the Mac Book lacking a separate video card it's not optimal.

A Mac Book Pro is a better choice, but you might want to wait a bit -- Apple will probably be

releasing new laptops with the Core 2 Duo processors any day now.

-Mike

September 6, 2006

If you want to have some fun with your long lens...

</blockquote>

I did this at Yellowstone several years ago.

At one stop a bunch of obnoxious photographers with their long glass were yelling at

non-photographer visitors to get out of their way and generally being total jerks (so they

could get pictures of the illusive Yellowstone deer).

Next stop with no one around I setup a tripod with a 300mm f/2.8 and proceeded to take

pictures of the distant horizon. Before long I was surrounded by a bunch of these folks

asking what's up. I concocted a story of a grizzly bear at the treeline and before long a

whole line of white Canon super-telephotos lined the road.

Then I left. Most fun.

August 28, 2006

I've tried several Sandisk USB card readers with the Camera Connector and always get a

"unsupported device" message.

The Apple support site does say it works with some media readers, but doesn't say which.

They say to check with the third-party vendor and a media reader with it's own power

supply is more likely to work. I've not seen a USB media reader with it's own power supply;

if it exists it sorta defeats the purpose of using an iPod if it needs to be plugged in.

RAW images transfer fine (at least those from a 10D I tested) but you can't view 'em on the

iPod.

August 28, 2006

The Canon software that came with my 1D2N works fine on 10.4. My "field" laptop is a 12"

800-MHz G4 PowerBook with 768MB RAM and 10.4.7.

It's not fast, but it loads in much less than a minute. I don't use the Canon software that

often, but I have recently used the remote capture and personal settings application.

I think there's definitely something amiss with your Mac...

Oh, in case y'all are wondering:

<ul>

<li>Mac OS X v10.0 (Cheetah)

<li>Mac OS X v10.1 (Puma)

<li>Mac OS X v10.2 (Jaguar)

<li>Mac OS X v10.3 (Panther)

<li>Mac OS X v10.4 (Tiger)

<li>Mac OS X v10.5 (Leopard)

</ul>

August 28, 2006

The Apple iPod Camera Connector only works with cameras (no card readers) and only via

USB. The 1Ds is firewire only so you're out of luck.

It's not as slow as some think but it's not that fast, either. I think a lot of people confuse the

Apple Camera Connector with the older Belkin unit that was slow as molasses.

I sometimes use my iPod to backup images from my point-n-shooter, but as others have said

there's much better and cheaper solutions.

August 26, 2006

I'm quite fond of the little SD550.

One advantage it has over the newer models in the SD range is that it has a larger 1/1.8"

sensor.

These snapshots all came from an SD550:

http://www.mikesisk.com/photo/gallery/eacc9c/

</a>

Some of the Fuji models may very well be superior, especially in high-ISO

performance (something I don't really care about), but it irks me they're still using xD

memory instead of the much more common SD that Canon uses.

July 24, 2006

MTBF probably isn't what you think it is.

Look <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBF">here</a> and

<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20001202154100/http://www.storage.ibm.com/

storage/oem/tech/mtbf.htm">here</a> for more info.

July 1, 2006

Try here:

http://philip.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=21&topic=Aviation</a>

June 23, 2006

I wouldn't worry. It's difficult to imagine what they could do to improve this particular lens.

It already has the latest tripod-compatible IS, weather sealing and excellent optical

performance. About the only thing I can think of that would make it better would be a focus

preset and the AF stop buttons like the super telephotos.

June 4, 2006

I have all three of the lenses being mentioned in this thread. IMHO, for all intents and

purposes, they all pretty much perform the same when it comes to taking pictures.

I also agree with the majority here in that the 16-35mm is a very fine lens. Here's a

few snapshots I took at a car show yesterday mostly with this lens and I don't see how it

could be sharper: <a href="http://mikesisk.com/ford-show/">

http://mikesisk.com/ford-show/</a>

There are some differences, of course. My copy of the 24mm f/1.4 is soft wide open

but sharpens up nicely once you stop it down a bit. Still, it makes quite acceptable pictures

at f/1.4. And being 2-stops faster than the 16-35mm (3-stops over the 17-40mm) the

viewfinder is much brighter. I don't feel the image quality of the prime is significantly

better than the 16-35mm.

The 17-40mm is a very fine lens -- especially considering it's price -- but having a f/

4 maximum aperture I find the viewfinder image dimmer than I'd like. It's also nearly the

same size and weight as the 16-35mm so there's no savings there.

In summary, IMHO, there's little reason to get the 24mm f/1.4 unless you need those

extra stops or want a prime. Get the 16-35mm f/2.8 if you can, but if you can't afford it,

the 17-40mm f/4 is a perfectly good piece of glass. All my opinion, of course.

May 20, 2006

Sure, OpenACS will do that. It's a very sophisticated web framework; you can check out the

details at

<a href="http://www.openacs.org">http://www.openacs.org</a>

One site using an OpenACS-based photo-management back end is

<a href="http://www.pps.org/imagedb/">http://www.pps.org/imagedb/</a>.

Another using "classic" ACS of similar vintage to that here on photo.net is

<a href="http://archnet.org/library/">http://archnet.org/library/</a>

Disclaimer -- I may be biased since I host all these sites, including that of

openacs.org.

Many, many other open-source gallery packages exist. Gallery (PHP-based) is one of

the more popular:

<a href="http://gallery.menalto.com/">http://gallery.menalto.com/</a>

April 29, 2006

With any of the G4 towers it's a pretty easy job.

If you go to the OtherWorldComputing website (http://eshop.macsales.com/), click on the

"Tech Support" tab and click on "OWC Installation Videos" you can view a video of the

process. OWC isn't a bad place to order upgrade parts, either.

-Mike

January 24, 2006

<blockquote>Do we need a test to ensure the text hasn't been manipulated in

Microsoft Word?</blockquote>

Probably.

In the past few years (decade perhaps) there has been a fundamental change in the way

scientific research is done and used -- especially in the biological sciences.

First problem: researchers live and die (or rather their jobs and funding do) by published

research.

Next, this research is expensive and often backed and funded by a commercial entity. And

-- bizarrely -- you usually have to pay the journal to have your research published.

The end result is that the stakes are so high that much of the work to prepare a

manuscript for publication in a scientific journal is out-sourced. Professional writers are

hired to produce the text and "digital artists" are brought in to do the illustrations and

graphics.

The temptation to cheat is high since the rewards are, too.

It is by no coincidence that Tim Berners-Lee's main idea behind his invention of the web

was to allow the self-publication of scientific data.

January 20, 2006

ExifTool does a great job. If you're on Mac OS X (or another Unix/Linux) you can pipe the

output from ExifTool through a string of standard utilities to find, sort, and rank various bits

of data.

For example, this one goes through a directory of images (subdirectories, too), extracts the

lens info, sorts it, and prints the top 10 used:

| head -10 | nl

January 6, 2006

Yann Arthus-Bertrand's book "Being a Photographer" includes a DVD documentary that's

interesting.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by mike sisk